Injecting A New Idea Into the Debate

Ow. Still hurts to type. Charles Haynes suggests a new tactic in the effort to educate students about the vacuity of ID and creationism in the classroom. Working off the passage of the new “monkey bill” in Tennessee, he writes:

Under the new law, Tennessee teachers apparently get to decide what counts as science (and what counts as "weakness" in scientific theories) -- even if most scientists disagree. Critics of the law see this as a green light for teaching creationism or other religiously based ideas as science.They may be right. What Tennessee lawmakers tout as academic freedom (a freedom, by the way, denied to teachers in every other subject), is very likely to be used as a Trojan horse for inserting religious convictions into the science curriculum.

A far better approach would be to address the religion-science debate up front by preparing teachers to teach students something about the history and philosophy of science, including the interaction between religion and science over time. Helping students understand the context for the culture-war fight over evolution may help them accept what modern science has to say.

I think this is a good idea. When I teach my Introduction to Human Origins class, I include a section on the history of science and where some of the young earth creationist ideas came from. One of the best books I have recently read is Davis Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence which he excerpted here. It is a great case study in the struggles of geologists and their attempts to understand the new evidence that the earth was revealing and why flood geology was abandoned 150 years ago. That it is still accepted by young earth creationists after all this time is a sad testament to their lack of scientific credibility. There is more evidence that the earth is flat.

I wonder if my idea that simply teaching creationism in science class would expose the stinkweediness of it is a good idea. It would only work if every teacher to a man or woman were honest about the scientific evidence but, as we have seen from recent polls, one in nine high school science teachers accepts creationism. Somewhere, an entry-level quiz is systematically being omitted. I would expect that if you want to teach science in a science class, you would have to have a basic understanding of what is science and what is not. I guess not.

----------------
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - The Fall Of The House Of Usher: IV. Pavane
via FoxyTunes

SB 893 Goes to the Governor

The Knoxville News Sentinel has a story on the migration of the “monkey bill” from the floor of the senate to Bill Haslam's office for signing. Tom Humphrey writes:

Haslam was asked his views on the bill last week after announcing plans to use federal funds to build three new Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) schools in the state.

"I don't know that I have any great insight there for you on that one," Haslam said, adding that he had heard of the bill but knew little about what was involved. The governor said he plans to ask state Board of Education officials about it.

"I think it is a fair question as to what the General Assembly's role is, I think that's why we have a State Board of Education," he said. "I think the General Assembly, though, does represent people and their votes and thoughts matter there."

I am not sure what the Tennessee School Board will do but I do not have high hopes. It just boils down to the fact that politics and science don't mix.

Casey Luskin on “The Monkey Bill”

Casey Luskin has written a piece addressing the Tennessee legislation 893, known colloquially and uncharitably as “The Monkey Bill.” He writes:

The bill enjoyed bipartisan support from all the Republicans, and over 35% of Democrats, in the Tennessee State Senate. The proposed legislation is a standard academic freedom bill that would apply generally to the teaching of controversial scientific theories, not just evolution.

This is disingenuous. This bill is aimed at evolution. Everyone connected to the bill knows this. Descriptions of the bill are always phrased as “evolution and other subjects” but nobody ever mentions the other subjects.

He continues:

Thus, the bill includes a clear statement that it only applies to teaching science and does not protect teaching religion. Don't expect that to satisfy critics, who will predictably ignore the actual language of the bill and falsely claim it would introduce religion in the classroom.

Teaching religion is not the issue. That is a smokescreen. The issue is the teaching of evolution.If it allows teachers to promote young earth creationism in the classroom, it will introduce religion into the classroom, even if it does so through the backdoor. With this bill in place, there is nothing to stop a teacher from teaching what they consider “weaknesses” in a scientific theory, even if those “weaknesses” are not scientifically supported.

Teachers will also interpret the meaning of “curriculum framework” in different ways and if, as was the case in Ohio with John Freshwater, they honestly believe in young earth creationism, that is what they will insert into their classes. Who will hold them accountable if they do that?

----------------
Now playing: John Coltrane - Giant Steps
via FoxyTunes

The Tennessean Weighs in on SB893

The state newspaper, The Tennessean has written an editorial on the passage of SB893, the “Monkey Bill,” called “Our View.” They write:

Does anybody think that Senate Bill 0893, as amended, is really about making our children smarter, more intelligent and better critical thinkers? No, not on any side of this argument. This bill is about wedging open a door to include a radically divisive, ultra-conservative Christian agenda disguised in politically correct language.

If the point were about making our children more critical thinkers, it would not be aimed solely at evolution. That it is ought to tell the average reader that the real purpose behind the bill is to attempt to water down evolution teaching or, in the hopes of some, remove it altogether by making its teaching so controversial that teachers won't want to bother. That is the purpose behind the bill. Those that promote it need to be honest about that.

----------------
Now playing: Bill Bruford's Earthworks - Revel Without A Pause
via FoxyTunes